A Slate article titled “As of Today, Black Lives Matter Activists Can Point to a Thorough Police Brutality Reform Plan”—and another piece about the plan on liberal site Vox—are the latest media attempts to paint the radical anti-police Black Lives Matter movement as a reasonable political force.
It’s another maneuver straight from the Occupy Wall Street playbook that allows establishment Democrats to utilize #BlackLivesMatter as their shock troops in the 2016 election and to normalize the group’s far-left agenda. These articles show that Breitbart News was correct in describing the recent “confrontation” of Hillary Clinton by Black Lives Matter as an effective marketing move for both Clinton and the actvists.
Both Slate and Vox give credit to presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for giving Black Lives Matter a nudge that they claim is a maturation process for the group.
As the Slate article trumpets:
The central point of contention between Hillary Clinton and the Black Lives Matter activist she spoke with in New Hampshire last week in a much-discussed exchange was her argument that his organization needed to supplement its protests by proposing laws and litigating court cases. To which activist Julius Jones responded, more or less, that since systematic mistreatment was a problem created by the mostly white United States power structure, it should also be incumbent on that power structure, and not the people it’s systematically oppressing, to solve the problem.
In any case, Clinton’s objection in general terms is now somewhat moot: Several anti-police brutality activists working under the name Campaign Zero just launched a very detailed website advocating criminal justice reforms in 10 different areas—ranging from marijuana law to stop-and-frisk profiling to the prosecution of police-involved shootings to the distribution of body cameras — that would address the central concerns of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Here’s the lede from Vox:
Black Lives Matter activists finally have an answer to critics demanding specific policy proposals.
This has been a central question posed to the movement, which aims to eliminate racial disparities in the criminal justice system, since it rose to national prominence following the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. A lot of groups — from supporters to media to Hillary Clinton — have challenged the movement to define its policy agenda.
Leave aside the group’s policy proposals—such as decriminalizing public intoxication, changing the police’s rules of engagement, and other bad ideas that would lead to more crime and the death of police officers—and note instead how both influential left publications lay out the false and openly racist narrative that the well-meaning activists need the Nice White Lady Politician to hector them into growth.
For anyone who paid close attention to the Occupy movement in the run-up to the 2012 election, this new scenario with Black Lives Matter will seem familiar. For those unfamiliar with Occupy’s role in re-electiing President Obama, the best place to start for a thorough overview is the film Occupy Unmasked starring Andrew Breitbart, which reveals, in stark detail, how Obama, the media, and seasoned “peace and justice” activists formed a culture war tag team to win the 2012 election.
Here’s how the Occupy playbook for building and normalizing a manufactured movement works: First, a radical left group shows up on the media radar and is given billions of dollars in free publicity that portrays them as well-meaning but undisciplined activists. Meanwhile, the group’s real agenda and origins aren’t reported to the public. The group’s police-antagonizing protests turn into violent clashes and property destruction, but the media focus continues to pressure police and give the protest movement the positive spin.
The next phase is “Where’s the policy agenda?,” where establishment media and politicians pretend to hold the group accountable without questioning their tactics or basic radical premise. With Occupy Wall Street, the central concept was pure socialism—the idea of “income inequality.” With Black Lives Matter, the core notions are racism and destroying the police.
In the Where’s The Policy? phase, the establishment Democrats and their media booster accept those ideas but go through the motions of giving the radical movement a stern lecture about growing up and getting serious. However, the entire “lecturing the activists” routine is a complete sham because, in fact, both the Democrat establishment and the radical movement are just different faces of the same thing; they are merely using what the left refers to as “a diversity of tactics.”
In other words, the supposed distinctions between the radical vanguard of activists and the Democrat establishment are a fiction. The public doesn’t know this because the media doesn’t report it, but the radicals are organized, understand policy, and are financed by Democrat donors like George Soros and other wealthy benefactors who lurk in the shadows.
Both Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter have a leadership that is well-versed in community organizing, is supported by an army of leftist attorneys, and have deep connections to the institutional left, including unions and organizations like Democracy for America.
Slate closes their article by saying:
Clinton is a sort of eager middlewoman or salesperson who takes the product (a reform idea generated by true believers) and convinces skeptical customers (moderate/independent/cautious voters) to buy it. With this site, Campaign Zero is saying to mainstream politicians: Here are some products that have been sold before — now do your job.
Expect to see Clinton, Black Lives Matter, and their media lapdogs doing their jobs selling radicalism to an unsuspecting public from now until November, 2016.